Judgment :- This is a petition to revise the conviction by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee, in Summary Trial No. 91 of 1952 on his file. The petitioners are two of the partners of the firm of G.T.R. Company. The firm consists of three partners as is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2 who says that one Thirunavukkarusu, one of the partners, has left the place. The prosecution is under Section 15(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for wilfully acting in contravention of Section 13 of the Act. Under Section 13 of the Act every registered dealer and every person licensed under this Act shall keep and maintain a true and correct account. The case is that the accounts that were seized by P.W. 1 on 17th November, 1950, when he went to the premises and inspected it are not true accounts maintained by the firm. Objection is taken by Mr. Sundaram for the prosecution of these two persons on the ground that it is the firm that should be prosecuted and not two of the partners alone. It is pointed out in Public Prosecutor v. Jacob Nadar which was followed by me in B. L. Patnaick, In re where a firm is the assessee, it is the firm that must be prosecuted and not the individual partners. If a complaint had been laid against all the three partners then that can be treated as prosecuting the firm. But that has not been done in this case. Only two of the partners were prosecuted and therefore the prosecution cannot lie in view of the decisions mentioned above. The convictions and sentences are set aside and the accused are acquitted. The fines if paid will be refunded. This does not mean that a fresh prosecution cannot lie against all the three partners and the plea of autrefois acquit under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not avail these petitioners if a properly framed complaint is laid against the firm as such including all the three partners.Petition allowed.